↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating the Specificity of Cognitive Control Deficits in Schizophrenia Using Antisaccades, Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Healthy Individuals With Poor Cognitive Control

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluating the Specificity of Cognitive Control Deficits in Schizophrenia Using Antisaccades, Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Healthy Individuals With Poor Cognitive Control
Published in
Frontiers in Psychiatry, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00107
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amanda L. Rodrigue, David J. Schaeffer, Jordan E. Pierce, Brett A. Clementz, Jennifer E. McDowell

Abstract

Cognitive control impairments in schizophrenia (SZ) can be evaluated using antisaccade tasks and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Studies, however, often compare people with SZ to high performing healthy people, making it unclear if antisaccade-related disruptions are specific to the disease or due to generalized deficits in cognitive control. We included two healthy comparison groups in addition to people with SZ: healthy people with high cognitive control (HCC), who represent a more typical comparison group, and healthy people with low cognitive control (LCC), who perform similarly on antisaccade measures as people with SZ. Using two healthy comparison groups may help determine which antisaccade-related deficits are specific to SZ (distinguish SZ from LCC and HCC groups) and which are due to poor cognitive control (distinguish the LCC and SZ groups from the HCC group). People with SZ and healthy people with HCC or LCC performed an antisaccade task during fMRI acquisition. LCC and SZ groups showed under-activation of saccade circuitry. SZ-specific disruptions were observed in the left superior temporal gyrus and insula during error trials (suppression of activation in the SZ group compared to the LCC and HCC group). Differences related to antisaccade errors may distinguish people with SZ from healthy people with LCC.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 19%
Researcher 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 9 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 26%
Neuroscience 7 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 12 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 April 2018.
All research outputs
#3,309,081
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#1,822
of 10,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,436
of 330,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#61
of 160 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,700 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,507 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 160 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.